Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Yeah, you've cited this stuff before, and it's a lot like having an
> idea in mind, then selectively filtering sources to prove the point.

Show me one place where our liberty is being protected or even expanding.
Show me.

> Let's just say this: Your cries of "The sky is falling!" are not
> convincing at all to me. And your posting this stuff in a driving
> newsgroup really means that you're preaching where it's fairly
> ineffective. And mostly OT, even in nominally driving-related threads.

It was driving issues that led me here. And this thread isn't about
driving one wit. A lot of what is discussed here is not about driving as
threads morph. I don't go starting all sorts of threads on these matters
unless they are directly related to driving.

I found that what was going on with driving, the checkpoints, making
violations of law from what most people considered safe and reasonable,
the use of RLCs, the real ID act (Driver's licenses), the promotion of
driving as priviledge upon which all sorts of strings could be tied, and
a whole host of other driving issues were part of a much larger problem.

I began to see what it is being done with driving in many facets of life.
The tracking, the monitoring, the searches, the control.... the whole 9
yards.

Driving issues is the root of it. People who highly regard free
individual travel are the best people to reach, the ones most likely to
see the same connections.

> What's the point? Your main audience, mostly, doesn't care. Or, as in
> my case, think your fears are WAAAAAY overblown, near the tipping point
> of "silly".

Even you care enough to reply instead of just plonking me into a kill
file. If I was just a delusional paranoid, then you'd just kill file me
without a second thought. Think about it the next time you have to go
through a police check point when you're driving. Think about it when you
see the red light cameras. Think about it when you read about or see
number plate scanning cameras. Think about it when you have to get your
REAL ID (federal, national ID) compliant driver's license. Think about
it.

I won't reply further to posts that accuse me of being a 'chicken
little' or worse. If you don't like it, kill file me.

Last month, Charles Mandigo, the retiring head of the FBI's Seattle office,
expressed concerns to the Seattle Times about the amount of power the
government is assembling, calling it a prescription for "tyranny."

"We cannot stand by and allow the government to shine a spotlight onto the
personal records of law-abiding citizens who have a constitutionally
protected right to privacy."


"Fletis Humplebacker" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Fletis Humplebacker" <nope> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker"
> >>
> >>> Fletis Humplebacker
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>> Fletis Humplebacker > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Brent P wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article >, Fletis
> >>>>>>> Humplebacker wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, you aren't willing or able to support your assertions.
> >>>>>>> I have, everyone but you understands it.
> >>>>>> That's another assertion.
> >>>>> Which happens to be true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He's quote the relevant portions of the Military Commissions Act.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You've...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...done nothing.
> >>>>
> >>>> And that's when I pointed out that there was committee oversight
> >>>> unlike the unchecked scenario he was painting. That's why I like to
> >>>> see specifics.
> >>> That looks like just an assertion to me. Where was this pointing out?
> >>
> >> When? Yesterday, I believe.
> >
> > Another assertion.
>
>
> It's there for anyone that cares to look. You're just playing a game
> because that's all you had. Now that's an assertion.
>
>
> >>>>> You're just *hoping* that it won't be used against *you*.
> >>>> Newsflash: If government operatives were that evil it could have
always
> >>>> happened.
> >>
> >>> Newsflash: it just got a lot easier because now it is backed by the
> >>> force of a law. That will get going along some people who might not
have
> >>> gone along with something illegal.
> >>
> >> I see, so now that's it's easier their true evil natures will likely
surface.
> >
> > Now that its legal, the potential for abuse is less or mo which do
> > you think?
>
> More but the trade off is that the chance to catch the nut jobs before
> they act is more too. Sis Boom Bah, Gooooo good guys!
> Read em and weep....
>
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4756706
> NPR.org, July 20, 2005 · The Justice Department credits the Patriot Act
with
> expanding the government's arsenal of investigative tools, helping it
crack several cases.
>
> Law-enforcement officials say the act has greatly enhanced information
sharing within the FBI, and with the intelligence community at large.
> The law helped erode the legal and bureaucratic "wall" that used to
separate the intelligence and criminal sides of an investigation.
> Federal authorities say this wall is at least partly responsible for FBI
and CIA intelligence failures prior to the attacks of Sept. 11.
>
> Critics say the Patriot Act made it easier to spy on people. But the law's
supporters praise it for correcting what they say were pointless
> double standards in investigative rules.
>
> A look at some of the Patriot Act success stories the government cites:
>
> Eased Restrictions on Information Sharing
>
> The Justice Department says the Patriot Act facilitated its investigation
of the "Lackawanna Six," a group of Yemeni-Americans who traveled
> to Afghanistan in 2001 to receive training at an al Qaeda-affiliated camp
near Kandahar. In the summer of 2001, the FBI received an
> anonymous letter indicating that the six might be involved in criminal
activity and associated with foreign terrorism.
>
> Under previous law, the government says the FBI would have been compelled
to pursue two separate investigations: one looking into possible
> drug crimes, the other investigating intelligence related to terrorist
threats. The Patriot Act took down the "wall" between these two types
> of investigations, allowing case-sensitive information to be shared
between the two groups, according to investigators.
>
> Five of the "Lackawanna Six" pleaded guilty to providing material support
to al Qaeda, and the sixth pleaded guilty to conducting unlawful
> transactions with al Qaeda. In 2003, they were sentenced to prison terms
ranging from seven to 10 years.
>
> The government characterized the group as a "sleeper cell," but some
critics argue that there's no evidence the men posed an imminent
> threat. Defense attorneys claim the federal government coerced their
clients into pleading guilty by implicitly threatening them with
> indefinite detention.
>
> Secret Surveillance Tools
>
> In a case similar to that of the "Lackawanna Six," members of "the
Portland Seven" terror cell attempted to travel to Afghanistan in 2001 to
> join the Taliban in fighting the United States.
>
> While investigating the case, law-enforcement agents learned that one
member, Jeffrey Battle, had previously contemplated attacking Jewish
> schools or synagogues and had begun casing buildings to select a target
for such an attack. Authorities suspected that a number of
> individuals were involved in the Afghanistan conspiracy, but only had
sufficient evidence to arrest Battle.
>
> Prosecutors say sections 218 and 504 of the Patriot Act allowed the FBI to
conduct secret surveillance of Battle, in order to ensure that he
> was not going to go ahead with any terror attacks.
>
> Prosecutors say they were also able to learn the names of the other
members of the group. Ultimately, they were able to collect sufficient
> evidence to charge all seven defendants. Six of the defendants were taken
into custody, receiving prison sentences ranging from three to 18
> years. The seventh defendant was never arrested; prosecutors said he was
killed during a firefight in Pakistan in October 2003.
>
> Access to Records from a Cable Company
>
> Section 211 of the Patriot Act eliminated a potential loophole for
terrorists by clarifying that cable companies -- typically protected
> under the federal Cable Act -- are also subject to federal wiretap and
electronic communications statutes. The section aims to ensure that
> terrorists and other criminals are not exempt from investigations simply
because they choose cable companies as their providers for Internet
> and other communications services.
>
> The Justice Department says Section 211 enabled investigators to obtain
information that was crucial to identifying an individual who had
> sent over 200 threatening letters, laced with white powder, to various
government agencies, businesses and individuals in Louisiana. These
> letters paralyzed the town of Lafayette, La., for several days in 2002, as
law-enforcement agencies with a limited number of hazardous
> material units frantically tried to respond to numerous requests for
assistance.
>
> The government says that as a result of information provided by a cable
company under Section 211, the perpetrator was eventually arrested,
> convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 30 years.
>
> Ban on Unlicensed Foreign-Money Transfers
>
> Section 373 of the Patriot Act makes it illegal to run an unlicensed
foreign-money transmittal business. Prosecutors say they used this
> provision to bring charges against Yehuda Abraham, an unlicensed money
transmitter, for his role in helping to arrange the transfer of funds
> in a thwarted arms sale.
>
> The Justice Department says Abraham's services were used by Hermant
Lakhani, a British arms dealer. Lakhani was arrested in August 2003,
> after attempting to complete the sale of a shoulder-fired missile to a
government cooperating witness who was posing as a member of a
> terrorist group.
>
> The Justice Department says the Patriot Act allowed prosecutors to quickly
bring a case against Abraham, bypassing the issues that have
> typically plagued similar cases in the past. Abraham pleaded guilty to
running an illegal money-transfer company in March 2004.
>
> Expanded Use of Pen/Trap Devices
>
> Section 216 of the Patriot Act modified existing legislation to indicate
that pen/trap devices -- typically used to track the phone numbers
> of incoming and outgoing calls on a telephone line -- could be used to
apply to the full range of communications media, including Internet
> and e-mail records.
>
> According to the Justice Department, this new provision was critical in
disrupting a plot to use cocaine to purchase Soviet bloc weapons for
> the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, which has been designated as a
terrorist organization by the State Department.
>
> Investigators used pen/trap devices, as well as a wire intercept, to
gather evidence against several of the targets. Four individuals were
> charged with conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist
organization, as well as conspiring to distribute five kilograms
> or more of cocaine.
>
> Access to Internet Records Without a Court Order
>
> Section 212 of the Patriot Act allows an Internet service provider to
disclose electronic communications directly to law enforcement,
> without waiting for a court order, if there's an immediate danger of
physical injury. The Justice Department credits the provision with
> allowing it to apprehend Jared Bjarnason in April 2004.
>
> Bjarnason had sent an e-mail to the El Paso Islamic Center in Texas,
threatening to burn the center's mosque to the ground if hostages in
> Iraq were not freed within three days. The government says FBI agents used
Section 212 to investigate the case, allowing them to quickly
> identify and arrest Bjarnason before he could harm the mosque.
>
> NPR's Larry Abramson, Maria Godoy and Katie Gradowski contributed to this
report.
>
>
>

wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:01:10 GMT, Bama Brian
> > wrote:
>
>> RES2CUE28 wrote:
>>> Mike T. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If I was a cop, I would have no choice. It's called standard
>>>>>> operating procedures. If you don't like it, don't be a cop. -Dave
>>>>> then you apparently aren't a cop if this is how you think it happens,
>>>>> in your "Standard" procedure.
>>>>
>>>> Whether you like it or not, cops are paid *and trained* to think under
>>>> fire. They are NOT ordered to return fire in every circumstance. If
>>>> you've got a 92-year-old woman firing at you, it's time to retreat,
>>>> regroup, and figure out what the **** you are doing wrong, because you
>>>> know that you ARE doing something wrong. Again, as I said, if you
>>>> don't like it, don't be a op. -Dave
>>>>
>>> and how many shot do they have fired upon them before they have the time
>>> to know that it is a 92 year old woman shooting and not some crazed
>>> lunatic?
>> So it's OK to apologize for the cop's behavior, since they are so-called
>> professionals, but not for 92 year old Granny's behavior?
>>
>> Try being 92 sometime. Even in the best of health, here's what you get:
>> Bad hearing.
>> Bad vision.
>> Slow reaction times.
>> Muscle weakness.
>> Brittle bones.
>
> And a handgun.
>
>> Granny probably had just enough warning to pull out her pistol and be
>> ready. It's a certainty that no matter what the apologists for the cops
>> want to believe, that she knew _only_ that some street scum were
>> breaking down her door and she was going to defend herself.
>
> Which makes her 'a crazy senile old broad who had no business
> owning a handgun'.

You don't believe that "We, the people..." have a right to defend
ourselves? Or is it just younger people that have that right?

The cops have NO duty to defend anyone; there are at least 28 court
decisions all the way up to the Supremes that say that.

> IOW - you suggest that 'She had no ****ing clue what she was
> shooting at' - this is not a good thing.

Why do you think that a citizen defending themselves against a home
invasion is not a good thing.

Maybe Granny should have called the cops?

> Funny enough, you ignore the fact that her aim was good enough
> to hit 3 cops before they could stop her. Kinda goes against your
> argument, eh ?

I don't think so. What do you have against an old woman being able to
hit something with a gun during a home invasion?

BTW, there's at least one unverified story that says that the cops
expended some 90 rounds in that house. If that's the case, the cops may
have shot each other. It wouldn't be the first time.

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

>
>

wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:10:35 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Granny probably had just enough warning to pull out her pistol and be
>>>> ready. It's a certainty that no matter what the apologists for the cops
>>>> want to believe, that she knew _only_ that some street scum were
>>>> breaking down her door and she was going to defend herself.
>>> Which makes her 'a crazy senile old broad who had no business
>>> owning a handgun'.
>> Perhaps. It became especially bad when he house was invaded by
>> three cops who had no business there.
>
> If they had a warrant, they had EVERY business there. That is
> the law.

Heh! Just having a warrant means nothing:

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Do you suppose that the cops told the judge that it was a 92 year old
woman that they were searching?

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

Dave Smith wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't do much for yours either. Those cops bumbled this one
>>> so badly I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they shot each
>>> other.
>> And it wouldn't be surprising if granny's gun either a 'drop gun' or was
>> found in the closet after the fact.
>
> The only reason that would surprise me is that the woman's niece
> was interviewed shortly after the incident and she claimed at
> that time that she had got the gun and the permit for her aunt.

Maybe. But there's no need to have a permit in GA to keep a gun in the
house. Unless Granny wanted a concealed carry permit.

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:35:40 GMT, Bama Brian
> wrote:

>>> Granny probably had just enough warning to pull out her pistol and be
>>> ready. It's a certainty that no matter what the apologists for the cops
>>> want to believe, that she knew _only_ that some street scum were
>>> breaking down her door and she was going to defend herself.
>>
>> Which makes her 'a crazy senile old broad who had no business
>> owning a handgun'.
>
>You don't believe that "We, the people..." have a right to defend
>ourselves? Or is it just younger people that have that right?

People with their full mental capacity only.
>
>The cops have NO duty to defend anyone; there are at least 28 court
>decisions all the way up to the Supremes that say that.

True. So ?

>
>> IOW - you suggest that 'She had no ****ing clue what she was
>> shooting at' - this is not a good thing.
>
>Why do you think that a citizen defending themselves against a home
>invasion is not a good thing.

IF you're going to twist my words, at least try to do a
convincing job of it.

>
>Maybe Granny should have called the cops?
>
>> Funny enough, you ignore the fact that her aim was good enough
>> to hit 3 cops before they could stop her. Kinda goes against your
>> argument, eh ?
>
>I don't think so. What do you have against an old woman being able to
>hit something with a gun during a home invasion?

See above.

>
>BTW, there's at least one unverified story that says that the cops
>expended some 90 rounds in that house. If that's the case, the cops may
>have shot each other. It wouldn't be the first time.
>
>Cheers,
>Bama Brian
>Libertarian
>
>>
>>

--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:39:38 GMT, Bama Brian
> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:10:35 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Granny probably had just enough warning to pull out her pistol and be
>>>>> ready. It's a certainty that no matter what the apologists for the cops
>>>>> want to believe, that she knew _only_ that some street scum were
>>>>> breaking down her door and she was going to defend herself.
>>>> Which makes her 'a crazy senile old broad who had no business
>>>> owning a handgun'.
>>> Perhaps. It became especially bad when he house was invaded by
>>> three cops who had no business there.
>>
>> If they had a warrant, they had EVERY business there. That is
>> the law.
>
>Heh! Just having a warrant means nothing:

Actually, it does.

>
>"Amendment IV
>
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
>to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

You can play 'Constitutional Scholar' all you want, it's a
meaningless game. The C is the BASIS of our laws, not the entire BODY
of them. For instance - if you want to play the 'letter of the
Constitution' game, you can not claim that rape should be illegal.
The words 'rape' or 'sex' do not apear in that document, nor any
direct reference to them. So, to use your tactics : Why do you thnk
rape should be legal ?

>
>Do you suppose that the cops told the judge that it was a 92 year old
>woman that they were searching?

It wasn't. It was a house.

>
>Cheers,
>Bama Brian
>Libertarian

--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:00:48 GMT, wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:35:40 GMT, Bama Brian
> wrote:
>
>>>> Granny probably had just enough warning to pull out her pistol and be
>>>> ready. It's a certainty that no matter what the apologists for the cops
>>>> want to believe, that she knew _only_ that some street scum were
>>>> breaking down her door and she was going to defend herself.
>>>
>>> Which makes her 'a crazy senile old broad who had no business
>>> owning a handgun'.
>>
>>You don't believe that "We, the people..." have a right to defend
>>ourselves? Or is it just younger people that have that right?
>
> People with their full mental capacity only.

Not true. Only people who have been judged to be incompent or insane may not
use firearms for self defense. Everyone else may be at something less than
their peak, and still shoot the ass off of asshole cops that bust thru the
front door unexpectedly without knocking.

>>The cops have NO duty to defend anyone; there are at least 28 court
>>decisions all the way up to the Supremes that say that.
>
> True. So ?

So, you have to do it yourself.

>>> IOW - you suggest that 'She had no ****ing clue what she was
>>> shooting at' - this is not a good thing.
>>
>>Why do you think that a citizen defending themselves against a home
>>invasion is not a good thing.
>
> IF you're going to twist my words, at least try to do a
>convincing job of it.

He didn't. And, the resident has every right to shoot at whatever is coming
thru the front door uninvited, most likely yelling and screaming and being very
intimidating. They do that at this address, they're going to get unsurvivable
wounds - I use a shotgun, not a handgun.

>>Maybe Granny should have called the cops?
>>
>>> Funny enough, you ignore the fact that her aim was good enough
>>> to hit 3 cops before they could stop her. Kinda goes against your
>>> argument, eh ?
>>
>>I don't think so. What do you have against an old woman being able to
>>hit something with a gun during a home invasion?
>
> See above.
>
>>
>>BTW, there's at least one unverified story that says that the cops
>>expended some 90 rounds in that house. If that's the case, the cops may
>>have shot each other. It wouldn't be the first time.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Bama Brian
>>Libertarian
>>
>>>
>>>

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:19:01 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>He didn't. And, the resident has every right to shoot at whatever is coming
>thru the front door uninvited, most likely yelling and screaming and being very
>intimidating. They do that at this address, they're going to get unsurvivable
>wounds - I use a shotgun, not a handgun.

Oh, so you think the cops aren't allowed to enter a house
unless someone inside says 'come on in' ? How amusing.

Do you figure a whole lot of criminals are gonna offer up that
invite ?


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> > Yeah, you've cited this stuff before, and it's a lot like having an
> > idea in mind, then selectively filtering sources to prove the point.
>
> Show me one place where our liberty is being protected or even expanding.
> Show me.

Show me one place where we've gone all the way down the illogical
slippery slope you claim we're on.

You can't.

As far as killfile goes, that's just a permutation of "if you don't
like it, leave" arguments that you like to complain about.

Tough luck about folks not buying your "sky is falling" stuff.

E.P.